east and west and marriage

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Aug 3 2005, 02:28 PM']There is a problem with this thesis, because if the East holds that a priest's blessing is absolutely necessary for a valid marriage, then Western marriages cannot be valid.

Because we know infallibly that the form of marriage in East and West are valid, then there must be an explanation which harmonizes the two.

The blessing of a priest cannot be said to be ABSOLUTELY essential to the Sacrament of matrimony, because the Church of Rome does not require such, and it is the Church of Rome to which we look for agreement.

Thus, the blessing of a priest is essential in the East, not by necessity, but by the form of the Liturgical ceremony.

This issue is similar to the anaphora of Addai and Mari. The Holy See ruled it valid, EVEN THOUGH it does not contain an explicit utterance of the words "This is my body", "This is my blood". These words are essential to the Roman Liturgical form, but because of this exception, they cannot be said to be ABSOLUTELY necessary.
[right][snapback]670258[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


I don't think your logic is valid here Erimite-- Apotheoun is saying that in the Eastern Church it is absolutly necessary, that the Sacrament cannot be confered in the Eastern Rites without being ministered by a Priest, ergo for all Eastern Rite Catholics the Ministry of the Priest is essential but for those Catholics in the Roman Rite such ministry is not absolutly essential for ministry of the Sacrament even while it is essential for the licit practice of said sacrament. I don't see how your contention above is really a refutation of that, He has not said that it is absolutly necessary he said it was absolutly necessary for those catholics within the Eastern Rites

[Era Might]

[quote]He has not said that it is absolutly necessary he said it was absolutly necessary for those catholics within the Eastern Rites [/quote]

He refers to the matter as a "doctrinal position" for East and West, but doctrine, as understood by the Church, is distinct from theological form. That is, doctrine cannot be "binding" on one lung of the Church and not the other, which makes his position confusing.

He speaks of an "Eastern" and "Western" paradigm, distinctly in which alone the separate forms prove intelligible, but the effect of marriage is an ontological truth. IOW, no matter what the paradigm in East and West, a priestly blessing cannot be said to be "absolutely" necessary if it is possible for the same ontological change to be effected without it. As I said above, it is necessary insofar as it constitutes the Eastern Liturgical form, but not from a doctrinal standpoint.

If by "doctrine" he meant theological form, then a lot of the confusion will be cleared up. He is free to clarify himself or offer a response. Which is why I bumped it.

Edited September 7, 2005 by Era Might

[Apotheoun]

The doctrinal positions on the minister of the sacrament of marriage are different, just as the doctrinal positions on the [i]filioque[/i] are different, and the Vatican itself has no problem with the differences.

[Good Friday]

I have to admit that I'm a bit confused, too. How can the Eastern Catholic Churches and the Roman Catholic Church disagree on the proper minister of the sacrament of matrimony, but still say that the sacrament of matrimony celebrated by the Sister Church is still valid? Doesn't one of them have to be right and the other wrong? I think that's what everyone's trying to get at here -- how can both of them be right?

[Good Friday]

Incidentally, if one of them is right, I propose it is the Eastern Church. :

[homeschoolmom]

Two Rites don't make a wrong??

[Era Might]

[quote]The doctrinal positions on the minister of the sacrament of marriage are different, just as the doctrinal positions on the filioque are different, and the Vatican itself has no problem with the differences.[/quote]

There is no such doctrinal difference. The filioque is simply a different theological formula in the West. There is no divergence in the doctrine believed.

If, in fact, this particular question about the Sacrament of marriage were a "doctrinal difference", then one of us would have to be wrong. If, in fact, the East held DOCTRINALLY that the blessing of a priest is absolutely necessary for marriage, then this would invalidate Latin marriages, because two converse propositions cannot both be true. A priestly blessing cannot be both necessary and not necessary.

The blessing of the priest is not, in fact, a doctrinal necessity, in East or West. It is, as I said before, a necessity of Liturgical form. The West has a different Liturgical form. Nevertheless, the fundamental belief must be the same, that the Sacrament does not require the blessing of a priest, anymore than a valid Consecration requires absolutely either leavened or unleavened bread.

Edited September 7, 2005 by Era Might

[Era Might]

For matters of documentation, in case it becomes an issue, the Holy See addressed the Filioque back in 1995:

[quote]Even if the Catholic doctrine affirms that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son in the communication of their consubstantial communion, it nonetheless recognizes the reality of the original relationship of the Holy Spirit as person with the Father, a relationship that the Greek Fathers express by the term ekporeusiV.

[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PCCUFILQ.HTM"]http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PCCUFILQ.HTM[/url][/quote]

Note that it is referred to as "the Catholic doctrine". Doctrine knows no bounds between East and West. Formulation of doctrine can vary, but not doctrine itself.

[Apotheoun]

Of course there are theological differences, and the Vatican itself knows that there are, and has actually told the Eastern Churches in communion with the Pope to delatinize their liturgies and theology. On the [i]filioque[/i] issue I recommend reading the Vatican's own clarification, for the Vatican itself says that the Nicene creed without the [i]filioque[/i] is normative for the whole Church. In fact if you read the CDF Declaration [url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html"][u]Dominus Iesus[/u][/url] you will notice that the Nicene creed is expressed without the [i]filioque[/i].

Now in order to clarify matters further let me say that as a Byzantine Catholic I reject any notion of the [i]filioque[/i] that makes the Son a cause ([i]aitia[/i]) of the Spirit's eternal hypostasis, because the Father is the sole cause ([i]aitia[/i]) in the Godhead, both of the Son's hypostasis and of the Spirit's. In other words, the Spirit takes His existential origin from the Father alone through procession ([i]ekporeusis[/i]), but the Spirit as divine energy is manifested ([i]to proienai[/i]) through the Son, both temporally and eternally, and this is the way in which the East understands the theologoumenon of the [i]filioque[/i]. Moreover, the Eastern Churches in communion with Rome do not have to recite the creed with the [i]filioque[/i], and in fact it is being expunged from Eparchy after Eparchy in the Eastern Catholic Churches as we speak.

So in summary the Eastern Churches, both Catholic and Orthodox, accept a manifestation of the Spirit through the Son in the divine energy, but they reject any notion that the Spirit takes His hypostatic origin from the Son, for that would ultimately destroy the monarchy of the Father.

As far as the sacrament of marriage is concerned, as a Byzantine Catholic I hold, in agreement with my [i]sui juris[/i] Church, that the minister of the sacrament is a priest, and so a deacon or any other person appointed as a witness cannot confer the sacrament upon the man and woman celebrating marriage in the Church. Only a priest or bishop may crown the couple and confer the sacrament upon them.

To say otherwise requires that Easterners basically become Latin in their theology, and that is not going to happen. The Vatican itself is encouraging Eastern Catholics to become fully and completely Eastern in their liturgical, spiritual, and theological understanding of the faith.

[Era Might]

[quote]Of course there are theological differences[/quote]

The issue in dispute here is not one of theology, but doctrine. Theology is the proper domain of theologians. Theology is based on doctrine, that is, the official teaching of the Church, to which all Catholics, Eastern or Western, owe their assent; although formulations of that doctrine may vary (eg, the positive formulation of the Assumption as opposed to the negative formulation of the Dormition, or the positive formulation of "full of grace" as opposed to the negative formulation of "free from sin").

[quote]In fact if you read the CDF Declaration Dominus Iesus you will notice that the Nicene creed is expressed without the filioque.[/quote]

Of course, because the filioque is not essential to the creed. It is simply a method of Latin formulation. Its absence or presence, properly understood, does nothing to change the doctrine held by the Church, to which all Catholics are bound. The Catechism of the Catholic Church underscores this:

[quote]This legitimate complementarity [of the Filioque], provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.

--#248[/quote]

It is of vital importance to grasp that the Filioque "does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the [b]same mystery confessed[/b]." In other words, we believe the same doctrinal mystery, we simply formulate it in different ways. Any Eastern harmonization of the filioque that transgresses the doctrinal understanding of the Magisterium is, de facto, an invalid proposition.

[quote]So in summary the Eastern Churches, both Catholic and Orthodox, accept a manifestation of the Spirit through the Son in the divine energy[/quote]

This is, in fact, not an Eastern theological formulation, but Catholic doctrine. This is precisely what the Filioque professes. The Father is the source of the divine nature, but this divine nature proceeds from the Father to the Son, and hence, from the Son to the Spirit.

[quote]Only a priest or bishop may crown the couple and confer the sacrament upon them.[/quote]

In the East, this is true. It is not true, however, as an absolute doctrinal principle. It is simply true insofar as the Liturgical form of the East requires it. In like manner, the Liturgical form of the East requires leavened bread, while the Western form requires unleavened. Neither the East nor the west holds that either type of bread is absolutely necessary. Their necessity flows from Liturgical form, not intrinsic necessity.

[quote]To say otherwise requires that Easterners basically become Latin in their theology, and that is not going to happen.[/quote]

Catholic doctrine supercedes East and West, or any other kind of theology. Catholic doctrine upholds the validity of Eastern and Western marriages. The difference in these two forms are Liturgical, not doctrinal. A priest is necessary in the East, not because the Sacrament intrinsically requires it (if it did, Latin marriages would be invalid), but because this is how the Eastern Liturgical form communicates the Sacrament.

[quote]The Vatican itself is encouraging Eastern Catholics to become fully and completely Eastern in their liturgical, spiritual, and theological understanding of the faith.[/quote]

Like I said above, all theology is subordinated to the Magisterium of the Church. The Eastern and Western theological patrimony are valid only insofar as they do not transgress the doctrinal teaching of the Church.

It is as absurd to claim that the blessing of the priest is ABSOLUTELY necessary in the East as it would be to claim to the use of leavened bread is also ABSOLUTELY necessary. It could, in theory, change, because the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church formally acknowledges that a marriage can be validly effected without the blessing of a priest, should the Liturgical form permit it.

This is further evident in the fact that an Eastern Catholic marrying a Latin Catholic can be married according to the Latin Liturgical tradition, and there is no problem presented. If a Latin Catholic spouse transfers Churches, neither does the marriage need to be performed again.

Edited September 7, 2005 by Era Might

[Don John of Austria]

Okay I think this is an arguement going no where, becaue I think the disagreement here is more semantic than substantive. What i really being debated is not marriage in the East and West but the term " absolutely Necessary". I understand here both of you are coming from, and I don't thinkeither of you are wrong within commonly understood definitions. It would be helpful if definitions where agreed on before this goes any Farther.


Eremite--- why do you have 2 accounts?

[Era Might]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Sep 7 2005, 08:21 PM']Eremite--- why do you have 2 accounts?
[right][snapback]714796[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Because I made a new account. Unless dUSt wants to erase the other one, it's there to stay.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Sep 7 2005, 07:29 PM']Because I made a new account. Unless dUSt wants to erase the other one, it's there to stay.
[right][snapback]714799[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I realize you made another account, but since you are posting on both of them I was curious as to why you made another account and why you where posting on both of them?

[Era Might]

I'm not posting on both of them. I posted on the other account only once since I made this new account last month, and it was because I accidentally signed in to the old account (which I noted at the end of the post).

Edited September 8, 2005 by Era Might

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Sep 7 2005, 07:53 PM']I'm not posting on both of them. I posted on the other account only once since I made this new account last month, and it was because I accidentally signed in to the old account (which I noted at the end of the post).
[right][snapback]714824[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I see, they where both on this thread so I was confused, I didn'tt look to see how old the the thread was origionally.


Still I think this is a semantic arguement.